It could be argued that if a ‘random’ variable is said to have an ‘expected value/variance’ then it’s not truly random(i.e. as a philosophical concept) – and just your typical scientific/mathematical technical term which is potentially misleading when mapped over and used in normal conversational context.

“The very attempt to create probability distribution curves under such a scenario would be useless. It would be like trying to model white noise.”

You might want to change the analogy you’ve used here in order to prevent boosting the smugness of physicists/mathematicians/electrical engineers who might potentially read this blog entry.

White noise can be modeled pretty well, as a ‘random’ process or variable. For example in communications if you have a (white) noisy channel – it’s represented as a flat line in what’s known as a frequency distribution spectrum. It’s basically a graph with frequency values on the horizontal axis and amplitude on the y axis.

Turns out it can be modeled using Gaussian distributions pretty effectively.

]]>By: Kelly Joneshttp://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-10963
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 01:17:18 +0000http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-10963@ drdrake: David wrote “Nature”. This presumably is the nature of *all* things, not the known universe. Totality cannot begin, since any start for any thing must be caused by something or things existing beforehand: but those somethings are also things. Therefore the Totality has no beginning. And “nothing whatsoever” has never existed, so the second possibility is a joke.

As to your possibility for the beginning of the *known universe* (which is probably the infinitesimalest component of the Totality), the cycle had to start somewhere, and therefore there could not be multiple beginnings.

“From a purely logical standpoint, there are only two possibilities concerning the origins of Nature. It either stretches back forever into the beginningless past, or it popped into being out of nothing whatsoever at some point. In other words, it either had an absolute beginning or no beginning at all. ”

No. There are many other possibilities. The universe could have had many beginnings as in the cyclic model.

Its not wrongly framed. Its just wrongly perceived. Nature isn’t infinite. It is finite. Nature is whatever you happen to be perceiving at this very moment. No more and no less. Its just like how numbers are not infinite. The largest number is the largest number you happen to think of at this very moment. Right now its 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That’s it. But now I can think of a larger one, and yes at that moment that number was the largest one. Its always expanding just like the universe.

]]>By: jupivivhttp://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-418
Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:35:35 +0000http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-418Sam Harris is probably the least rational amongst the New Atheist trinity of Dawkins, himself and the late Christopher Hitchens. The reason for that is probably that he considers himself as more of a philosopher than the other two and consequently puts his foot in his mouth more often.
]]>By: Liberty Seahttp://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-416
Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:12:37 +0000http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-416I am aware that Harris is limited in the scientific realm. His rationality is still in its infancy. His works are valuable nonetheless.
About his integrity, I will need to know more about him before I can pass judgement.
]]>By: Kelly Joneshttp://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-415
Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:39:15 +0000http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-415I’m guessing that Harris’ purpose in writing the book isn’t about revealing the nature of Reality, but in adding an argument to the New Atheist quiver of arrows, by destroying the religious reliance on the idea of free will. That is, Xians et al. believe we all have the choice whether to obey God (saved) or not (sinner), which is basically a way of arguing for God’s existence. But more tellingly, Harris never once explains how he reasoned that all decisions are fully caused except by reference to neurology, and other specific causes. So the book is firmly fixed in the scientific realms, not in the logical realms. I can’t recall where, but he has stated explicitly that pure reason isn’t reliable. So he is an agnostic, and he doesn’t seem to be open to doubting his doubt. This latest book does seem to waver on the boundary, but I wonder if it’s just a convenient device to flex his philosophical muscles in the face of some heavy theologising.
]]>By: Liberty Seahttp://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-414
Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:28:31 +0000http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=473#comment-414A dogmatic agnostic, or a permanent agnostic in principle, is someone who says truth is unknowable. Which is dishonest.
A temporary agnostic is someone who says he doesn’t know the truth. Which is honest. He aspires to know absolute truth, though he does not know the right method.
It is unfair to lump Sam Harris with the rest of the New Atheists. He never encouraged faith in the non-existence of God. He encouraged Reason and intellectual honesty, though he is still limited in the realm of science. His interest is the nature of consciousness, which led him him to discover the non-existence of self. And as Kelly pointed out, he provided convincing arguments that free-will is an illusion, similar to David’s arguments. His position as an Atheist was founded on the argument that since there is no free-will, religious dogmas and punishments after death are irrational notions. Good arguments, I would say.
]]>